Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (17194)	12/4/1998 1:58:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Well, if you still happen to think that somebody who is declared by the jury to be "not guilty" is not really innocent by your standards, then what the justice systems tells you is to take it and shove it up your you-know-what! End of discussion.

To: one_less who wrote (17194)	12/4/1998 2:00:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 67261

<<< LOL you're making it up as you go. Juries are regularly instructed not to bring back a verdict of guilty unless it is based on the evidence presented.>>> Speaking of clowns...uh bozo...normally juries are instructed that they are not to bring back a verdict of guilty if there remains a reasonable doubt. Only someone as obviously twisted as you would fail to see that "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as innocent. <<<Evidence is regularly blocked by the court as inadmissable. The judge can instruct jurors to disregard something that gets presented.>>> Gee Poindexter...wonder why that is..."Your honor we appeal your decision to disregard this material because brees says so". Most times it is blocked because a prosecutor can't prove guilt and attempts to enter in to record irrelevant and immaterial "evidence" in an attempt to skew the jury about the defendents character. Happens all the time. <<<Prosecuters often just can't put their hands on the evidence they need to convict because they can't find it or it is destroyed, or it doesn't exist (like an eye witness or confession). >>> That is when they rely on opinion to prove their case and that's when they usually lose. The truth is if a prosecutor gets tagged with a case such as you describe it should never have gotten out of the grand jury! <<<The idea is to go on the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Not proven innocence until proven guilty. So if YOU want to presume somebody is innocent, go ahead. That doesn't prove anything.>>> My how you do prattle on...thank you for yet another senseless reply. Your "opinion" of someone's guilt is about as useful as a Confederate coin in a New York subway. By the way, are you from Iraq? <<<If you want to go around saying every time guilt can't be established in court the person is proven innocent, go ahead. Don't talk to any one representing the legal system about this without your Ronald McDonald outfit on though, or they wont get it.>>> Forget the law books Einstein...try Hooked on Phonics. I never said that someone who is proven not guilty is proven innocent because at that point there is NOTHING TO PROVE! That's because they ARE innocent, they were innocent and they'll stay innocent! THEY PASSED THE ACID TEST! WAKE UP! At LEAST learn to read and not make assumptions. It's called respect for the law regardless of the outcome. Try it sometime.